Let me also say for the record that I know and respect many great 121 pilots out there....I just don't agree with this guy's opinion on the whole....you've got great 91 and 121 pilots just like they're are weak ones on both sides as well.....
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
- Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
- Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
- Share the passion for aviation
- Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun
How much would a Falcon 7X First officer pay be
- Thread starter Friend
- Start date
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
- Invite your friends
- Share the passion of aviation
- Friendliest aviation community on the web
Let me also say for the record that I know and respect many great 121 pilots out there....I just don't agree with this guy's opinion on the whole....you've got great 91 and 121 pilots just like they're are weak ones on both sides as well.....
You've been reading the USA Today too much. Most RJ guys you trash have waaaaaayyyy more experience than you're giving them credit for.
You speak of them having "little" experience with your 5000+ hours. Might want to look in the mirror...
fisherpilot
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2009
- Posts
- 79
I've flown 121, 135, and now 91. I believe the lack of customer service in a 121 is a load of B.S. This is purely an individual thing. I have flown with some great guys/gals in 121 that had great customer skills and some 135 and 91 guys that weren't that great. I think that when I was flying 80 hrs a month I felt way more comfortable flying than I do now, 5 yrs later, when I'm flying a part 91 corporate jet (fortune 500 gig) and only flying 7-10 hrs a month. Don't slam the regional or any other airline guys on their experience level. Sure some of the guys get hired at LOW times, but they don't stay that way. Now, I have no plans on going back to 121 unless it is for one of about 3 airlines (FedEx, Southwest, or UPS). I'm glad I did the 121 thing because I learned a lot and it was a great thing for my career.
In my opinion part 91 is the best one of the 3 as far as QOL and pay. I get a lot of time to spend with my wife and two young kids, but their are strong and weak pilots in every field of aviation, just as it is in every occupation out there.
In my opinion part 91 is the best one of the 3 as far as QOL and pay. I get a lot of time to spend with my wife and two young kids, but their are strong and weak pilots in every field of aviation, just as it is in every occupation out there.
LegacyDriver
Moving Target
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2004
- Posts
- 1,691
Not good to speak ill of the dead but... You had a Captain with a history of failed checkrides that he managed to get by on. The thing that kept him from killing someone sooner was probably the standardization he had in the 121 and good F/Os. I don't know if this is true but I have a feeling he was more interested in chatting up the F/O than flying the thing. JMO.
COMPLETE disregard for SOP on an empty repositioning leg. Idiots regardless. They would have done the same on the 91 side. (We had a guy nearly prang a Falcon doing a high speed, low altitude takeoff in ground effect showing off for people on the ground. Part 91 dweeb all the way.)
Dark, unlit runway, right next to the right one (and no giant blinking X to warn the crew) with inaccurate taxi diagrams and a controller who wasn't helping. Mistake that could happen to anyone. Was corrected industry-wide with new procedures that were even adopted by some 91 outfits. (First passenger fatality accident in the history of the "Regional Jet"--CRJ/ERJ.)
If it was an EMB they wouldn't have gotten four feet without all sorts of sh*t blaring at them. Again, a brain fart which happens. Saw a Falcon crew do a similar stunt in a 91 outfit. It happens.
And if I listed all the mindlessly braindead things I've seen in part 91 as well we'd be here all month. At least when the handle turns red and screams "FIRE" I *KNOW* the average 121 driver will get the airplane on the ground in one piece if it can be done.
I won't dispute that this could be a factor, but the 121 drivers and military guys that worked for the same outfit were all first rate. I've seen more than a few guys that went from 91 to 135 and they were equally clueless in many areas. People who bag 121 people don't have a clue what they're talking about.
Last edited:
I won't dispute that this could be a factor, but the 121 drivers and military guys that worked for the same outfit were all first rate. I've seen more than a few guys that went from 91 to 135 and they were equally clueless in many areas. People who bag 121 people don't have a clue what they're talking about.[/QUOTE]
I'm not bagging anybody....you've got great pilots on either side and weak ones alike...depends more on the person than where they are at in the industry...best of luck to everybody out there...end of discussion for me.
I'm not bagging anybody....you've got great pilots on either side and weak ones alike...depends more on the person than where they are at in the industry...best of luck to everybody out there...end of discussion for me.
Gulfstream 200
Database Expert
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2002
- Posts
- 4,574
91,121,135, etc etc it really just depends on the individual....the d-bags and whiners are USUALLY the first out the door and they tend to stay unemployed-underemployed far longer than most.....and dont understand why....:erm:
Nobody can stand to fly with a retard who cant shut up about his previous job or previous airplane and who has a comment or EXCUSE for everything!..When someone rates their job by the type of jet they fly it often tells you qol sucks!
I would personally fly anything if the job was good! And it was a Gulfstream.
Nobody can stand to fly with a retard who cant shut up about his previous job or previous airplane and who has a comment or EXCUSE for everything!..When someone rates their job by the type of jet they fly it often tells you qol sucks!
I would personally fly anything if the job was good! And it was a Gulfstream.
Last edited:
fisherpilot
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2009
- Posts
- 79
Very well said, I have flown 91, 91K, 121 and 135. I will say in all operations I have flown with true skilled professionals as well as with idiots that should not fly kites. What I believe is that the 121 guys are usually more standardized, however there are many great 91 operators that utilize standards also (on the flip side there are many that are ran like Rodeos full of cowboys).
In short, there are always people that should not be in the cockpit, no matter what type of operation it is.
My 3 1/2 Cents
rumrnr78
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2004
- Posts
- 601
Hugh Johnson
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2004
- Posts
- 684
CA1900
Big Member
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2002
- Posts
- 5,436
AA717driver
A simpler time...
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2003
- Posts
- 4,908
Sorry I'm late. Did I miss anything? 
Oh, just another 121 v. 91 pi$$ing contest.
There are 121 pilots who can't fly. There are 91 pilots who can't fly.
There are 121 pilots who can NEVER learn customer service and working as a team to provide good customer service.
There are 91 pilots who don't give good customer service. (I've seen it.)
Anything else?
TC
P.S.--If you're not smart enough to know that 91 is a 'wide spectrum' job, you deserve to be labeled "just another lazy airline pilot".
Oh, just another 121 v. 91 pi$$ing contest.
There are 121 pilots who can't fly. There are 91 pilots who can't fly.
There are 121 pilots who can NEVER learn customer service and working as a team to provide good customer service.
There are 91 pilots who don't give good customer service. (I've seen it.)
Anything else?
TC
P.S.--If you're not smart enough to know that 91 is a 'wide spectrum' job, you deserve to be labeled "just another lazy airline pilot".
Ty Webb
Hostage to Fortune
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2001
- Posts
- 6,524
Actually, the common link between half of those airliner accidents you listed, if you really want to get down to it, were weak-d!ck crews that were trained at Gulfstream.
91 versus 121 . . .This argument has been going on here at flightinfo for the past 14 years, literally.
Having flown jets under 91/135 and 121 I have to say that 91 gives you the extra knowledge about your aircraft to do your own performance planning and flightplanning and develop problem-solvinng skills, whereas the repetition and "fly in nearly any conditions" world of 121 gives you some experience with stuff you probably would rather not have (like the 35 kt direct Xwinds, the 600 RVR Cat III landings, being the first in/ or the last in as a squall line passes, or dealing with the ridiculous drama and p!ssin!ng matches in the cabin . . . . . Oh, wait, that's the same. Nevermind.
91 versus 121 . . .This argument has been going on here at flightinfo for the past 14 years, literally.
Having flown jets under 91/135 and 121 I have to say that 91 gives you the extra knowledge about your aircraft to do your own performance planning and flightplanning and develop problem-solvinng skills, whereas the repetition and "fly in nearly any conditions" world of 121 gives you some experience with stuff you probably would rather not have (like the 35 kt direct Xwinds, the 600 RVR Cat III landings, being the first in/ or the last in as a squall line passes, or dealing with the ridiculous drama and p!ssin!ng matches in the cabin . . . . . Oh, wait, that's the same. Nevermind.
UnstableAviator
Dual Given.
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2003
- Posts
- 303
Thats a quality post. Its all individual capability and the ability to adapt to changing job requirements. As a 121 guy to regularly flies 60+ legs a month and 85+ hours, I can certainly attest to the repetition and "fly in nearly any conditions" part.
Hugh Johnson
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2004
- Posts
- 684
Flown by 121 pilots protected by seniority.
AA717driver
A simpler time...
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2003
- Posts
- 4,908
Ty Webb
Hostage to Fortune
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2001
- Posts
- 6,524
Seniority isn't protection, fool. Brown-nosing, maybe. Seniority, nope.
Seniority does, however, keep the brown-nosers from upgrading before you do.
Seniority, like at netjets that is the largest operator and has the best safety record in the 91 industry? LOL.....
2000Easyguy
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2007
- Posts
- 204
''
Sorry about your thread "question" being hijacked. Hope you found your answer.
Obviously not here.
Sorry about your thread "question" being hijacked. Hope you found your answer.
Obviously not here.
Yes, but the operation of either is transparent to the pax-they are fundamentally the same thing. Just trying to dispute huhg's inference that below average pilots on a seniority list are not weeded out like they are at a non-union department. In fact, you could make the claim that there are more politics involved in a non-union shop with those who have been there longer, are older, or have stronger personalities and do the sucking may very well be the pilots who should be shown the door. All too often I have heard aircraft owners say they "trust their pilots and feel safer" simply because they hang out together or happen to know their families. It may make for a better and more personalized customer service experience, however it has been known to breed complacency in the operation of the aircraft.
Caveman
Grandpa
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2001
- Posts
- 1,580
Do you realize that a junior CA at Comair or Eagle has at least 10,000 hours in their logbook? Most have significantly more than that and when I say junior I'm talking about guys with 10+ years with the company. I would guess that most (meaning at least 51%) of the CAs at Comair have upwards of 15,000 TT. I personally know dozens of FOs at Comair that have at least 8000 TT and aren't senior enough to hold CA. Even at the places with supposedly quick upgrades like Republic the junior CAs have at least 5000 hours and usually a lot more.
Any RJ pilot is flying a lot more than you are and sometimes in conditions you wouldn't even consider flying in. They may be underpaid but they aren't inexperienced.
NachoMamma
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2004
- Posts
- 181
Caveman
Grandpa
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2001
- Posts
- 1,580
http://www.planecrashinfo.com/cause.htm
Pay particular attention to the graph indicating which kind of flying is safer. The numbers suggest you are 5 times more likely to be involved in a fatal crash flying part 91 than you are flying part 121. If you remove intentional events like sabotage, hijacking, bombs and terrorism from the mix the numbers would be even more skewed in favor of 121 over 91.
We have poor pilots in all segments of aviation including part 121. What I take exception to is the false belief that the typical RJ crew is inexperienced. At the larger regional airlines (Eagle, Comair, Skywest, ASA, etc) the crews generally have a lot of experience and there is no evidence showing someone is more at risk riding on an RJ vs riding on a corporate jet. In fact the NTSB stats linked above suggest the contrary.
I am NOT making a 121 vs 91 argument. I'm just refuting the contention that regional pilots are unsafe and inexperienced. It's simply not the case.
Share this page
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
